Portugal is rapidly ageing and continues to view talent over 50 as a cost. It is short-sighted. When experience and momentum are combined, when older generations work alongside younger ones, teams become stronger and more effective. This is not theory: with simple rules and clear metrics, intergenerationality speeds up results that matter for the country.
Portugal is one of the most ageing countries in Europe. According to Eurostat, more than one fifth of people in the European Union are aged 65 or over. In Portugal, data from INE shows that this trend will continue until the end of the century. This means that we have a highly experienced workforce, with value to contribute, and that we are failing to make proper use of this value.
Instead of separating “things for young people” from “things for older people”, worsening the divide through insistence on mythologizing, it would be more sensible and, I would say, rational to combine different ages and skill sets within the same team. Older professionals bring the experience curve regarding what works and what fails. Younger professionals bring digital tools, greater flexibility and new pathways. These are just a few examples, in a brief snapshot, of the many possibilities.
What do studies tell us?
They tell us, for example, that the “young genius founder” (the Zuckerbergs and Steve Jobs of this world) is rare. A large study in the United States concluded that among the fastest-growing new companies, the average age of the founder is forty-five, and that previous experience in the sector where they operate is the strongest indicator of success (AER – American Economic Review - Age and High Growth Entrepreneurship - 2020).
But of course, teams made up of different ages do not function through a magical touch. They work when there are clear rules and mutual respect among all parties involved. The mechanism is simple: age diversity is an advantage, particularly in terms of innovation, but only when there is healthy debate and not personal conflict. Cognitive conflict increases team innovation, while affective conflict reduces it (Frontiers in Psychology - Generational diversity and team innovation: the roles of conflict and shared Leadership - 2025).
Closing the generational gap: transforming conflict into competitive advantage
We are ageing, living longer and working in teams that can include four generations at once. If we do not know how to manage this meeting of ages, the result will be wasted talent. If we manage it well, it may become the greatest engine of innovation and the innovation and the future of our organizations.
The so-called “generational gap” is not merely a clash of lifestyles or cultural references. It is the result of four revolutions happening simultaneously: in the workplace, in technology, in longevity and in how we view careers and purpose. We work remotely, in hybrid models and in dispersed teams; we have artificial intelligence agents joining our teams; we live longer, with longer careers; and people’s relationship with work has changed, no longer defined solely by salary and security, but also by flexibility, meaning and continuous learning.
In this context, young talents and senior leaders (or “older professionals”, for those with more sensitive ears) face distinct challenges that are deeply interconnected.
Those entering the labor market today find a hypercompetitive and uncertain environment, full of promises of rapid impact and equally rapid frustration. They bring greater digital fluency, wider global exposure and a willingness to change direction. But they also face stereotypes (“they do not want to work”, “they cannot handle pressure”), the anxiety of falling behind and the ongoing pressure to remain relevant.
On the other side, senior leaders (“older professionals”) deal with the erosion of formal authority and of leadership based purely on hierarchy. They need to relearn how to lead in collaborative models, with people who question more, demand transparency and do not identify with phrases such as “it has always been this way”. They have experience, networks and institutional memory (all precious assets in a world in transition), but they feel succession pressure, technological learning curves and the fear of becoming dispensable.
The mistake lies in viewing these two sides as if they were opposing camps. The major organizational blind spot is failing to recognize that the greatest value lies in the intersection between generations. It is not a matter of choosing between the speed of younger professionals and the precision of older ones. It is about designing contexts in which one amplifies the other. In practice, this means moving from passive coexistence to intentional collaboration.
There are at least three concrete paths to close the generational gap within organizations.
The first is intergenerational learning. It is not enough to bring people of different ages into the same room. Formal mechanisms are needed and, when well designed, they are more valuable than dozens of hours of traditional training.
The second path is Intergenerational Innovation. When real space is created for debate, with psychological safety and shared leadership, cognitive conflict (about what to do and how to do it) becomes a driver of innovation rather than turning into personal conflict.
The third path is transgenerational leadership. It is not about placing a “token young person” in the room, but about integrating people of different ages with a clear mandate, responsibility and active voice. Transgenerational governance sends a simple and powerful message: the future and the past sit at the same table to decide the present.
Closing the generational gap is not a feel-good cause to include in a sustainability report. It is a strategy for survival and competitiveness. Organizations that waste senior talent and exhaust young talent end up trapped in a spiral of turnover, loss of critical knowledge and an inability to innovate consistently. Those that succeed in turning age differences into ecosystems of continuous learning build future-proof human capital.
The choice is less philosophical than it seems. Either we continue feeding narratives of mutual suspicion between generations, or we accept, with intention and pragmatism, that the next leap in productivity, innovation and wellbeing in our organizations depends on how we bring together people aged twenty, forty, sixty or seventy to work side by side. The generational gap does not close on its own. Either we face it head-on with policies, programs and clear examples, or we will continue to confuse talent waste with inevitability.
The good news is that the revolution has already begun. It is up to each person and each organization to decide whether to watch the “ship go by” or to “step onto the field”. Sara Aguiar and I, a remarkably talented twenty-eight-year-old, are already walking the talk with this methodology I have just shared to harness the value between generations.
What do you say?
Frederico Fezas Vital, Professor at CATÓLICA-LISBON